Childhood Cancer statistics trends
Since 1962 there have been gradual changes in childhood cancer registration and death
rates in Britain (Figure Six1). Registration rates increased by 0.8% per year on average
between 1962 and 1998, a total increase of 35%.
NEOPLASIE NELL’ INFANZIA ED
ADOLESCENZA IN EUROPA (1978-97)
SARCOMI + 2% per anno
TUMORI DELLA TIROIDE + 3% per anno (esclusa
Bielorussia)
MELANOMA + 4.1% per anno in adolescenti
LINFOMI DI HODGKIN:
+1% per anno età 0-14 anni
+3.5% per anno età 15-19
anni
iencedirect.com
Europ.
Jour. of Cancer 42 (2006) www.sc iencedirect.com
Europ. Jour.
1: Lung Cancer. 2008 Apr 2 [Epub ahead of print] Links
Adenocarcinoma of lung in never smoked children.
Park JA, Park HJ, Lee JS, Ha JO, Lee GK, Park BK, Ghim TT.
Pediatric Oncology Center, National Cancer Center, 809 Madu1-dong,
Ilsan-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 410-769, Ilsan, Republic of Korea.
Except in developed countries, the incidence of lung cancer notably in
women and non-smokers is rising in most parts of the world. Here, we
report two children diagnosed with pulmonary adenocarcinoma at a very
early age. Interestingly, both showed negative EGFR mutation despite
their ethnicity, histology, never smoking status and early age. Furthermore,
one had preceding pulmonary tuberculosis. In the literature, the possible
association of pulmonary tuberculosis and adenocarcinoma of lung
especially in non-smokers has long been debated. The two children, by far
the youngest with EGFR negative adenocarcinoma of lung, form the basis
of this report.
COORTE DEI RESIDENTI : SUDDIVISIONE IN 5 ANELLI
CONCENTRICI E IN BASE ALL’
ALL’ ESPOSIZIONE A METALLI
PESANTI E DISLOCAZIONE CENTRALINE
http:/www.alessandroronchi.net/files/relazione_enhance_health.pdf
www.arpa.emr.it/moniter
STUDIO DI CORIANO:
STIMA DELLE EMISSIONI NELL’ AREA IN ESAME
(fonti principali di inquinamento: 2 inceneritori, traffico, attività artigianali)
• MONOSSIDO DI CARBONIO : 14.000 t/anno
• OSSIDI DI AZOTO: 1.100 t/anno
• COMPOSTI ORGANICI VOLATILI (COV) : 2.400
t/anno
• POLVERI: 125 t/anno
• OSSIDI DI ZOLFO: 800 t/anno
• BENZENE: 120 t/anno
• PIOMBO: 110 t/anno
• NICHEL: 45 t/anno
MORTALITA’ NELLE DONNE RESIDENTI ALMENO 5 ANNI ENTRO 3.5 km
DAGLI IMPIANTI PER: TUTTE LE CAUSE, TUTTI I TUMORI, ALCUNI
TUMORI : RISCHIO RELATIVO (* statis. sign.)
metalli
pesanti
ng/m3
<1.9
tutte le
cause
1
tutti i tumori colonretto
stomaco
mammella
1
1
1
1
1.21
(0.67- 2.21)
2.0-3.8
1.17*
(1.08-1.28)
1.17
(0.93-1.47)
1.32
(0.6-2.79)
1.75
(0.8-3.69)
3.9-7.3
1.07
(0.98-1.16)
1.26*
(1.01-1.57)
2.03*
(1.0-4.13)
2.88*
1.10
(1.47-5.65) (0.60-2.01)
7-4-52
1.09
(0.96-1.23)
1.54 *
(1.15-2.08)
2.47*
(1.0-6.10)
2.56*
2.16*
(1.04-6-28) (1.10- 4.27)
Tipi di tumore
Risultati preliminari
novembre 2006: eccesso
di rischio di tumori
Mielomi multipli (uomo)
Mielomi multipli
(uomo/donna
Sarcomi dei tessuti molli
(uomo/donna)
Risultati definitivi marzo
2008: eccesso di rischio
di tumori
+ 23%
+ 16%
+ 12%
Linfomi Non Hodgkin
(donne)
+22%
+18%
Linfomi Non Hodgkin
( uomo/donna)
+8.4%
+12%
Cancro del fegato
(uomo/donna)
+ 9,7%+
+16%
Cancro al seno
+6,9%
+9%
Tutti i tumori femminili
+ 4%+
+6%
SARCOMI ED INCENERITORI
incidenza
+44%
Viel JF Am. J Epidemiol.
2000, 152 (1):13-9
incidenza
OR = 31.4
P. Comba et al
Occup.Environ.Med 2003; 60:
680-683
incidenza
dal +9.1% al +13%
Institut de la Veille Sanitarie:
2006
mortalità
RR = 10.97
Enhance Health
http:/www.arpa.emr.it/monite
r
incidenza
OR = 3.30
(OR = 20.77 in cluster a
Dolo)
Zambon P Environmental
Health 2007, 6:19
Esposizione ad inceneritori : Rischio Relativo (RR)
statisticamente significativo
Effetto indagato
Carcinoma polmonare
(mortalità)
RR
2
2.6
6.7
(small cell)
(large cell)
Fonte bibliografica
Barbone F.,
American Journal
Epidemiology 1995
Biggeri A.,
Envirom Health Perspect 1996
2.3 (Incidenza)
Linfomi Non Hodgkin
2
Floret N.,
Epidemiology 2003
(Mortalità)
A Biggeri
Epidemiol. Prevenzione 2005
Sarcomi tessuti molli
(incidenza)
31.4
Comba P.,
Occupational Enviromental
Medicine 2003
Neoplasie infantili
(incidenza)
2.1
Knox E. G.,
International Journal
of Epidemiology 2000
LORENZO
TOMATIS A FORLI’
IL 24 NOVEMBRE
2005 PER UNA
AUDIZIONE SUGLI
INCENERITORI
ESORDI’...
”LE
GENERAZIONE
A VENIRE NON
CI
PERDONERANN
I I DANNI CHE
NOI STIAMO
LORO
FACENDO”
•
•
DESCRIZIONE DEL CASO
Nato a termine, da gravidanza regolare, anamnesi familiare negativa, genitori non
fumatori, residente in agglomerato R11*, presenza di industrie insalubri di classe I
secondo la normativa vigente (art.216 RD 1265/34 DM 5.9 /1994)
All’ età di sei anni compare disuria, nicturia fino a ritenzione acuta di urina,
ricovero: prostata di 4.5 x 4.3x 4.5 cm e lobo dx di 2.1x 3 cm.
Esegue, TAC TB, cistoscopia, aspirato midollare, biopsia prostatica biologia molecolare
(No trascritti di fusione quali PAX3-FKRH o PAX7-FKRH) diagnosi:
rabdomiosarcoma embrionario della prostata in IV stadio (localizzazioni polmonari<1 cm)
Indagine nanodiagnostica di microscopia elettronica a scansione e microanalisi a raggi X
presenti particelle di 1-2 micron di Oro, Argento, Tungsteno, Ferro-Cromo (acciaio),
Zirconio, Silicio ed Alluminio
Esegue chemioterapia, autotrapianto, chemio-ipertermia per oltre 1 anno senza
raggiungere RC in ambito pelvico
La famiglia rifiuta la terapia radiante proposta e si affida a terapie “alternative”
A distanza di circa due anni il bambino appare in buona salute e conduce vita normale
*zone dove è particolarmente elevato il rischio di insorgenza di episodi acuti, il rischio di superamento dei valori limite
e/o delle soglie di allarme per le quali la normativa prevede necessariamente e a breve temine la predisposizione di
Piani di azione finalizzati al risanamento atmosferico (Art.. 121 e 122 della L.R. 3/99)”.
LISTA DELLE PARTICELLE RINVENUTE NELLE
BIOPSIE DI PROSTATA E VESCICA
finalmente
qualcuno ci
ascolta....
WHO report, 2007
• “The adoption of the “best available technology” (BAT),
enforced by the European Union (EU), results that the
occurrence of measurable health effects on populations
resident in close proximity of new generation incinerators
is becoming less likely.”
• “However their overall impact on the general
environment and on human health through indirect
mechanisms of action, has not been evaluated yet.”
• “In particular waste incineration, currently on the
increase in many countries, may be a non–negligible
contributor of greenhouse gases and persistent
pollutants on a global scale”
http://www.euro.who.int/healthimpact/MainActs/20070228_1
Dear member of the Environmental Committee of the European Parliament,
I know that you have begun the second reading to re-examine the proposal put forward by the Council of Ministers of the EU concerning the guidelines on the subject of waste which once again
provides for (after the European Parliament had rejected it following the first reading) a reclassification of the incineration of waste at a high rate of energy recovery. Based on this change, this
sort of treatment would no longer be considered a form of disposal, nut rather a type of recovery, thereby raising it to a level not very dissimilar to recycling.
Since the examination of the proposal and of the relative amendments within the Committee of which you are a member will be concluded in the next few days, I would like to invite you to keep in
mind the following points:
As far as classification is concerned, incineration can only be considered to be, in every respect,
as a form of disposal, especially if we keep in mind the fact that more than 70% of the weight of the material which makes up waste is dispersed in the environment which therefore becomes, de
facto, a waste dump. Most of the material which ends up in the atmosphere due to these plants is harmful for the environment, with the sole exception, perhaps, of water vapour which risks
being contaminated by the pollutants it is mixed with when it condenses. Many of the substances which are thus released are highly toxic for our health due both to their intrinsic toxicity(1)and
to the type of physical aggregation in which they appear (fine particles).(2)
Please also keep in mind that as far as the materials which make up waste are concerned, those that are capable of producing the greatest heat value (the only ones which allow a sufficiently
efficient recovery of energy) are usually the most easily recyclable ones. The energy saved by avoiding the production ex novo of these materials (using new raw materials) is always much
greater than that which can be recovered by burning them.(3) If we look carefully at the facts, therefore, incineration is much more a form of wastefulness than a type of recovery. The
Confederation of Waste Incineration itself has admitted in a recent study that the re-use and the recycling of materials has a decidedly lower impact on the environment and on our health as
compared to incineration.(4)
In any case, new forms of technology have also been invented for non-recyclable material which offer an alternative to combustion and make it possible to recover material to be used in production
without the negative impact on the environment and on our health which incineration inevitably entails. As an example, I would like to mention a form of technology developed in Italy with the
cooperation of the University of Padua and which has been applied in a recycling center in the province of Treviso Thanks to this technology, non-recyclable dry waste is transformed into a synthetic
type of sand which can be used as an inert component in the manufacturing of products
made out of concrete. Tests carried out in the laboratories of the University of Padua have shown that the use of this synthetic sand instead of traditional inert products also confers mechanical
characteristics which are superior compared to traditionally manufactured goods.
The fact that there are alternatives to incineration which are feasible and have no negative impact on our health and are advantageous for the environment and which represent a type of recovery in
the true sense of the word should, on the basis of the principle of precaution, lead us to discourage the use of incineration which cannot by any means be considered harmless to human
health. On the contrary, the evidence of probable damage to the health of people exposed to the fallout of the pollutants released by these plants is becoming more and more evident.
I therefore invite you to keep in mind above all the concerns which are arising more and more
in the medical community considering the consequences that the emissions of incinerators can have on the health of people exposed to them.
Purely as an example, I would like to mention the Federation of Medical Associations of the Emilia
Romagna region which, after alarming epidemiologic data was published relating to a study carried out on people exposed to the emissions of two incinerators in the town of Forlì(6) requested that
the administrators of this region not grant concessions for the building of new sites. In France, the National Council of the French Medical Associations, together with numerous other medical
organisations representing more than two million members, has asked for a moratorium on the construction of new incinerators.(7) More and more frequently, these concerns of a medical
nature are being raised and refer not only to obsolete or old-fashioned plants, but also to new generation
sites which apply the best available technology. The World Health Organisation, at the conclusion of a European seminar held in Rome in March 2007, the results of which have recently been
published, referring to latest generation plants affirms that:
….their overall impact on the general environment and on human health through indirect
mechanisms of action, has not been evaluated yet.”
In particular waste incineration, currently on the increase in many countries, may be a nonnegligible contributor of greenhouse gases and persistent pollutants on a global scale. (8)
Considering the amply reported evidence of the harmful effects of old plants and of the lack of information about the true impact on human health of the new ones and since we know in any case that
even the latter contribute in no small measure to the emission of greenhouse gases and of persistent pollutants which inevitably have a negative effect on human health, it seems appropriate
that those who make decisions on this matter should base them on the principle of precaution. We should therefore discourage the use of incineration and rather direct policy concerning
waste management towards options which make it possible to re-use and recuperate material as completely as possible.
I see that in the amendment to point 14 of art.3 there is a request to consider “recovery” as a
process of waste treatment that corresponds to the following criteria: (omissis)…..
6) concedes high priority to the protection of human health and the environment and minimizes the formation, release and dispersal of dangerous substances during the procedure.
.
I therefore request: that the criterion of the protection of human health receive absolute priority
in orienting the choices of the Committee and of the entire European Parliament and that for this reason the incineration of waste remain a residual form of disposal to be applied less and less.
Trusting in your sensitivity and in your sense of responsibility, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Giovanni Malatesta
Pistoia, Italy
Degree in Physics
Former high school teacher of Physics and Mathematics
Agricultural entrepreneur, owner of an organic enterprise
Franchini, M., et al. – Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions: a review of
Epidemiological studies, Ann. I.S.S. (2004)
Linzalone N. et al. – Incinerators: not only dioxins and heavy metals, also fine and ultrafine
particles – Epidemiol Prev. (2007) Jan.-Feb; 31 (1): 62-6
Irish Doctors Environmental
Association [IDEA]
Cumann Comhshaoil Dhoctúirí na
hÉireann
[Home]
[Patrons]
[Committee members] [History] [Constitution] [Position
Papers] [Chemicals] [Nuclear]
[Priority Projects 2007] [Programme 2007] [Affiliations and Links] [Contact]
Incinerators and their Health Effects
Incinerators and their Health Effects
06-15
June 2006-
Indipendenza e Neutralità della “Scienza”
Identification of carcinogenic agents and primary prevention of cancer Bologna, 20 September 2005
Lorenzo Tomatis
Introduction In his introduction to ‘De morbis artificum diatriba’, Bernardino
Ramazzini ………………..exemplifies how science, legal justice
and social equity can harmoniously and efficiently co-exist in
a competent, sensible, committed physician.
In our society, these three qualities rarely converge. Social equity
is the most consistently maltreated of the three, while science is
generally considered by definition to be above criticism,
deliberately ignoring the possibility that its objectivity is
often blurred by conflicts of interests.
INCIDENZA DI NEOPLASIE
NELL’INFANZIA E NELL’ADOLESCENZA IN EUROPA
(anni 1970-1999)
(Lancet, Dic. 2004)